Multiple Women in One Day Attracted

Not surprisingly, my post about Ed Shaw’s book excerpt could use some updating. My original post is here. The article I am critiquing is here. Justin Taylor tweeted out two positive reviews of the book. One was by Tim Challies here. The other was a review by the Gospel Coalition here. In this last review, there was a paragraph near the end which identified the same problem I identified, but without any of my colorful adjectives. Here it is:

“There is another way to read this section of the book. Shaw could be saying his same-sex orientation is in and of itself a morally neutral reality that doesn’t need to be redeemed. It’s a weakness perhaps, but only sinful if acted upon, and it is different than attraction. If this were true, challenging questions are raised: Does a same-sex orientation have good in and of itself? Should it be embraced even as one shuns same-sex desire (lust) and activity? It seems Shaw moves between a conversation about desire, attraction, and orientation without helping the reader understand how they are different—or if they are. I’m sure Shaw has strong feelings about all of this. It would just help all of us navigate these waters better had he been more explicit in the book.”

And this is the issue. In the comments section of my post, someone asked if I agreed with Denny Burk that same sex attraction was sinful in itself, even if never acted on. I said yes, but that appropriate qualifications needed to be made. Here they are.

If a desire cannot go anywhere good, then the desire simply must be reckoned to be part of the old man that we must be entirely dedicated to putting off. If the desire can go somewhere good, as heterosexual desire can, then the mortification process is supposed to see to it that it goes to that place, and nowhere else. If we see same sex orientation (so long as it never has an overt sexual expression) as a good in itself, or even as neutral, then we are setting ourselves up for a bad fall. Here is why.

You do not want to adopt a principle for living that becomes immediately absurd or impossible when we get to the next iteration of the sexual revolution — and believe me, it is coming. Just as some people are “same sex attracted,” so also others are “pre-pubescent attracted.” Now is that orientation sinful?

Of course it is. And I can acknowledge that it is sinful without insulting godly Christians who have the misfortune to have to deal with those sorts of lusts. If a man has those sorts of lusts, then he must mortify them. Execute them. Put them to death. A godly Christian can in fact have those lusts, and we can tell that he is a godly Christian because he hates every last one of those little bastards. They are nothing but cross fodder to him.

What does Paul tell the Colossian Christians, after he addressed them as “saints and faithful brothers” (Col. 1:2)? He told them that they had died, and that their life was now hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). As a consequence of those realities, he commands them to put to death their members which are on the earth (Col. 3:5).

“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming.” (Colossians 3:5–6, ESV).

Now if it were not sinful, I wouldn’t need to put it to death. If there were nothing wrong with it, I wouldn’t need to walk away with my revolver smoking.

These are not truths that are limited to those with homosexual temptations. In just the same way, a man can be a godly Christian and be multiple-women-in-one-day attracted. It may be part of his orientation, but that is no reason for giving it the time of day.

If someone who identified as “pre-pubescent attracted” wanted to discover “the good” in his orientation, we would all warn him (I hope) that he was playing with fire. There should be a zero tolerance approach to this kind of thing. But if we don’t like a principle here, we should not tolerate it anywhere else.

We should let John Owen have the last word on this — a man will make no progress in godliness unless he walks daily over the bellies of his lusts.

77
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
12 Comment threads
65 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
21 Comment authors
timothyinvisiblegardenerChristopher CaseyMESpike Pittard Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Zachary
Guest
Zachary

TGC needs to just delete the article and issue a retraction.

Alan Stout
Member
Alan Stout

I thought I was commenting on the first article. Dang. I see here that you are addressing the thing I said you should address.

Dang again.

Ryan David Shelton
Guest
Ryan David Shelton

Doug, well nuanced argument for the most part, but I have a question how you think this principle plays out in the concrete. The best arguments for the celibate SSA side will maintain that if their attraction leads to sexual activity (including lust) to that end it must be mortified. The analogy to the child-attracted is helpful to a point, but it seems to break down in practice. To the recovering (repenting) petafile who wants to volunteer in the church nursery, I would say, “No, absolutely not.” And I think it partly has to do with the added vulnerability of… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Ryan, The way that you have defined s.s.a. is not helpful. By implication, you are defining s.s.a. as “finding a member of the same sex attractive.” Notice the way you have framed your question, “So does this person simply abstain from friendship with anyone for whom he/she finds a momentary attraction?” All humans can recognize an attractive male, female, child, or horse. We have eyes. Therefore, if s.s.a. is nothing more than finding a member of the same sex to be attractive in some way, then the category itself is absolutely irrelevant. If that is what is meant by s.s.a.,… Read more »

Ryan David Shelton
Guest
Ryan David Shelton

Thanks for your input, Tim. Allow me to clarify: It is this very “head-shaking” response from friends who do experience exclusive sexual attraction towards members of the same sex that leads me to believe that this issue is in fact more complicated than often admitted. And we can get verbally absurd in our definition of “identity.” If a man has only experienced sexual desire from other men, that is a kind of identity. But it doesn’t make it fundamental any more than someone is an idolatrous for identifying himself as a Packers fan or a coffee drinker. Consistency and frequency… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Thank you for the clarification. I should add my own as well. When I said, your comment leads me to think that you are viewing s.s.a. as an identity, I should have said as a permissible identity. Yes people identify themselves on the basis of this strong internal pull. It does function as an identity for them. This is the problem. The issue with claiming a sinful attraction as an identity is that we have a Scriptural warrant which should keep us from doing so, namely “such were some of you.” We are instructed to “put off” these sinful identities… Read more »

Ryan David Shelton
Guest
Ryan David Shelton

Thanks Tim. I don’t think I disagree with you doctrinally. But I wonder if you’re being realistic when you consider the practical implications something like homosexual attraction. Granted, for many who struggle in this area, they often find a dual sexual attraction that allows them to not only fight the sinful desire but to pursue a healthy heterosexual relationship. But consider those for whom they find no heterosexual attraction. They chose to accept biblical authority and love in holy celibacy. But they live single lives, never participating in normal domestic lives. They are asked regularly why “a nice young man… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Hmm… I understand full well that putting off disordered attractions and putting on godly attractions is exceedingly rare. However, this is the promise of the gospel. Two questions for you: 1) do you believe a man can put off his sinful pull to intimately join himself with animals to such an extent that he could have a healthy and satisfying relationship with a woman? 2) what is the difference between his pull and s.s.a. other than the difference of object? We are obviously trained to view individuals with s.s.a as victims of their own orientation in a way that we… Read more »

Ryan David Shelton
Guest
Ryan David Shelton

Well, first. I haven’t met that person, have you? Second, to whatever extent that person crucified their desire to sin sexually in body and thought, I would celebrate the Spirit’s work of restoration in his or her life. Third, if they were unable to find sexual desire for a member of the opposite sex, but remained chaste, pure and celibate, I would celebrate with them their personal display of the sufficiently of Christ over sexual gratification. I would also recognize that they would have a significantly different lifestyle as a result. Without many of the normal structures of family life,… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Yes I have known individuals who have committed that sin, but we do not yet think of it as an orientation but an act. That was the point of the comparison. Your last paragraph I think exposes the difference in the way we think about these issues. You think of s.s.a. as a form of brokenness which victimizes individuals. I think of it as something commanded to be put off. Trusting in God’s ability to help you put to death evil desire is the actual gospel not the prosperity gospel. When an individual views himself as being victimized by his… Read more »

Nathan Anderson
Member
Nathan Anderson

The gospel promises that a thief can learn to be generous, loving to give and hating to take. I agree that desires and attractions can be changed, by God’s grace, through the work of the cross and the Spirit. But I’m not sure that that nullifies Ryan David’s point that “no brokenness is ever promised to be restored to full functionality this side of glory.” I also think it is unfair to read “presumptions of victimization” language into his words. I don’t know anybody with a full and healthy understanding of sin and of God’s nature that would try to… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

I absolutely agree that no brokenness is ever promised to be restored to full functionality this side of glory, but notice what you have done there. We were talking about sin and now we have moved to “brokenness.” The two terms carry different connotations. The gospel sets us free from sin, not brokenness. You seem to be going back and forth between sin and brokenness without explanation, not recognizing that the categories carry different connotations. The man born blind from birth was not born blind as a result of his sin or his parents sin. He ought not repent of… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

These words of wisdom apply so well here, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Where a man’s thoughts go, so goes he. Setting aside men or sexual attraction for a moment, this applies to all of us You can no more fantasize about slowly torturing your enemies in your basement and then try to claim it is okay because you haven’t actually acted on it. You cannot smile sweetly and someone while your heart is full of murderous intent and claim it… Read more »

David Henry
Guest
David Henry

Are you using “sinful” to mean “willfully disobedient towards God” or “a result of the Fall which will one day be expunged?” Or some combination of those, or something else entirely?

I ask this because, unless I misunderstand how “same-sex attraction” is being used, homosexual temptation is not willful disobedience, though it is a result of the Fall and should be fled.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I thought of this immediately after I read Doug’s reply in the previous post. I think I should have asked if ssa is in itself “a sin” instead of “sinful”.

timothy
Guest
timothy

If a man has those sorts of lusts, then he must mortify them I bring mine to God. The principle is to tell God the truth in all things. The term “put to death your lusts” seems to put the power to kill them in our hands. I don’t have that power, God does. I am curious if this difference is a translation issue, or if I am going against doctrine or if the doctrine is to bring them to the Cross. (now, if you can kill the s.o.b’s do so , more power to ya) In just the same… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

It is not a translation issue, the Bible emphasizes the same point in many ways: 1) put to death evil desire 2) apart from me you can do nothing, abide in me and YOU can bear much fruit 3) put off the old man along with its desires, put on the new man 4) repent and believe 5) hate the evil, desire the good 6) rend your hearts, not your garments 7) work out your own salvation with fear and trembling because God is at work in you to will and to do according to his good pleasure. We work… Read more »

Jerrod Arnold
Guest
Jerrod Arnold

Romans 8:12 “So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

You kill them…by the Spirit.

Evan
Guest
Evan

“Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers” by John Owen. Required reading for Christians in my opinion. No one can explain things like John Owen. You can read it free online at various sites. Oh yeah one warning, like most of John Owens’ works, it’s best to be prepared to have your face kicked in and lying on the floor crying out to God for mercy. You have been warned. :)

timothy
Guest
timothy

I found and bookmarked a link.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/mort.i.i.html

bethyada
Member

I think David Henry has a point here. While I agree with Doug in both these posts, I don’t think the Gospel Coalition has sold the farm, and I don’t overly disagree with the GC article. What is needed is more clarity. People see sin as choosing rebellion against God (which it is), but it is often more than that. And we are unwilling to own sin if others helped sin arise in us. Take a boy who is innocent, but abused and as a consequence feels sexual attraction toward men, especially as an adult. His good upbringing helps him… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I prefer the Catholic approach of seeing same sex attraction as disordered rather than sinful.

bethyada
Member

Possibly.

Though I suspect that even with that distinction, most gay men have desires that are indulged enough (in thought) to be described as sinful.

duellsquimby
Member

I need that quote in a large woodburned log on my study wall.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

“You do not want to adopt a principle for living that becomes immediately absurd or impossible when we get to the next iteration of the sexual revolution — and believe me, it is coming. Just as some people are “same sex attracted,” so also others are ‘pre-pubescent attracted.’ Now is that orientation sinful?” This is such a tired and silly argument. Just because one thing that used to be considered taboo by a society is no longer considered taboo, it does not follow that all things that used to be considered taboo will no longer be considered taboo. It is… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

It is quite simple to see the line–no, rather the wide gulf that
exists–between same-sex relationships involving consenting adults and
pedophilia. Slippery slopes are not strong arguments and are
irresponsible.

The historical record shows that they are not irresponsible, but to be expected. Plutarch and Senaca are instructive here. See Plutarch’s account of the goat and the woman.

But the minor premise here is treated as if it were a given fact based
on a priori knowledge. Where is the proof that same-sex desires can not
“go anywhere good”?

Romans 1:28

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

The historical record shows that a slippery slope argument is to be expected? Can you elaborate please? And Romans 1:28 is not proof that same-sex desires can come to no good.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Romans 1 shows the progression of a people who do not honor God. First, the stage is set: For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Then the progression: 1. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts 2. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. 3.And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.… Read more »

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

“So, we have the scriptural principle and the historical example of that spiritual principle at work. Since American pagans are not immune to God’s judgement we can expect history to repeat itself and for American pagans to become at least as perverted as the Romans were.” This is simply not logical. You cite Romans 1 as evidence that slippery slope arguments are logically valid. But they aren’t, no matter how you slice them. Maybe the sequence of events in a slippery slope argument will actually come about exactly as described, but the reason it is considered a logical fallacy is… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Shorter Spike: “Ignore historical precedent, ignore Scripture, look at me!”

Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals know this. You know it too.
When man meets God, the pretensions of our rightousness are burned away by His holiness. We, as flesh–the flesh for which you advocate–have no standing before Him. We are vapor, mist. So are your ‘arguments’ and pleadings and justifications.

You will meet God and this passion of yours will die and all that can remain is Christ in you. I hope He is there.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

Your response fails to deal with any of my points. Your argument was that Romans 1 shows us the slippery slope. You know, it all starts with rejecting God and then we end up with homosexuality and then who knows what else. But look at the REAL WORLD. There are plenty of atheists that reject Christ and yet are highly moral heterosexuals who behave quite nicely. If they reject Christ, why don’t they also go down the slippery slope and embrace bestiality and pedophilia? And how is it possible that a same-sex Christian couple can be every bit as faithful… Read more »

David Henry
Guest
David Henry

I’ve been googling various versions of “Plutarch’s account of the goat and woman” for the a good while to no avail. Where is this account found?

timothy
Guest
timothy

I will see if it is in my notes. I got there from BibleHub… one sec…. Edit: here is where I started….http://biblehub.com/greek/5540.htm Edit 2: IIRC it might have been via the commentaries on Romans 1:26 http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/1-26.htm or via research into the Leviticus prohibition against bestiality. The gist of the account is that a city (near Carthage?) had at its gate a woman and a goat on display. The woman would have the goat mount her. The goat, Plutarch remarked, was hesitant to do so–even the goat ‘knew’ it was unnatural. Edit 3: This is closer to what I read: http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/rmn/rmn02.htm… Read more »

David Henry
Guest
David Henry

Hah! Certainly makes a point along those lines. Thank you much.

David Henry
Guest
David Henry

“Gill’s Exposition on the Entire Bible” on Leviticus 18:23 cites Bochart’s “Hierozoicon” which is itself citing Plutarch’s “Beasts are Rational” from his “Moralia,” where he tells that story, but not making the point Gill and Bochart are apparently using it for. Some connected texts do make the point that this was not uncommon in the ancient world as an act of worship.

The god whose cult this was done under, by the way, was apparently loosely connected with the Baphomet that modern Satanists depict.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Hi David, “The goat did not want to do it” tells us something very important, doesn’t it? That nature itself gives witness of Him and His purpose. Please keep it in mind for future “there is no slippery slope” b.s. from men like Pittard. The depravity that Jesus, St. Paul and others dealt with far eclipses what we see; it is the direct result of the spiritual condition of the pagans and it is a depravity pagan America will share in should God not intervene (which I think He is currently doing) Pittard has no credibility on the matter and… Read more »

Matt Bell
Member

“Just because one thing that used to be considered taboo by a society is no longer considered taboo, it does not follow that all things that used to be considered taboo will no longer be considered taboo.” I don’t think that’s the point of the argument. The point is, whatever the next iteration of the sexual revolution may be, will we have a cogent response to it? Or do our arguments for lawfulness of SSA allow for more than we intend to allow in the future? Do our arguments for “gay marriage” accidentally open the door to polygamy? etc.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

It’s it worth considering that perhaps we’ve made it more difficult to defend against challenges that pedophelia has some legal grounds now. All the same, if same sex marriage equality is the right thing to do, then we can’t make our decisions based on what might come at us down the line. Besides, the legal justification for same sex marriage over things like beastiality and pedophila is pretty simple to see.

Matt Bell
Member

“Besides, the legal justification for same sex marriage over things like bestiality and pedophilia is pretty simple to see.” And that highlights what I think is the point – what does one say to the pedophile or, um, bestial-ist, who doesn’t see it that way? Yes, they are wrong, but why? Some believe that feelings trump pesky biological and/or legal obstacles, you see. So in response to your second sentence, remember that at the moment we’re not so much talking about causality, i.e. certain kinds of cultural acceptances actually leading to others, whether they do, etc., but about the integrity… Read more »

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

The arguments do not work “just as well”. Marriage equality is about consenting, same-sex adults that love each other wanting to have the right to marriage. There is nothing cruel about same sex marriage, nothing about an imbalance of power in the relationship, nothing manipulative or physically harmful. Sex with an animal is abuse to the animal and there would be know way to prove in court that the animal wanted to be in this relationship. And we can reject pedophila outright because it inolves minors. Case closed, regardless of “orientation”. There is no logical reason why same sex marriage… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“Marriage equality is about consenting, same-sex adult…”

Yes, but the very fact that you are concerned about consent, leads one to conclude that there is something wrong here, that a potential risk exists, that this is an issue requiring informed consent and awareness of harm. “Consenting adults” is a term we reseve for alcohol, drugs, and piercing intimate parts of your body.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

If you want to take it that way, fine. But I’m using consent to refer the free choice and equal balance of power between the two parties. There is no consent on the part of the horse, for example, in bestiality. And there is no consent between a man and his child victim in the case of pedophilia. “Consent” is not always used for harmful things. I have to give consent to an EMT to provide care. Please come up with a more compelling argument.

insanitybytes22
Member

There is no consent on the part of the horse? Well, not long ago a horse killed someone attempting to engage in an act of bestiality with it, so considering the man is dead, I’ll have to assume the horse was actually holding the power at the time.

Equal balance of power between parties becomes a complex issue because there is no such thing as equal and perfectly balanced power at all times.

timothy
Guest
timothy

I remember when progressives where assuring us that homosexual marriage would never happen. Those who where mocked for saying it would where correct. Now, you are repeating the cycle for the next level of depravity.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

When was this? But even if that’s correct, your argument is still a slippery slope argument. Is there any evidence that culturally we are willing to accept bestiality and pedophilia and polygamy? Allowing for same-sex gender in a two-person marriage does not logically lead to polygamous marriage, or embracing pedophilia and bestiality. This is purely an argument from fear. By the way, have you met any Christian same-sex couples? You might be surprised by how not-depraved they are.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Andrew Sullivan. Google it. The slippery slope has historical precedent here in America and 62 AD Rome.

“Let Reason be silent when experience gainsays it.”

Matt Bell
Member

You’ve provided a great example of an argument for SSM that works equally well for polygamy. Re-read your comment, replacing “same-sex marriage” with “polygamous marriage.” To accept SSM and reject polygamy using this argument is an example of what Wilson means by “a principle for living that becomes immediately absurd or impossible when we get to the next iteration of the sexual revolution.”

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

It’s true that the “consenting adults” idea would potentially support polygamy. But polygamy is easy to shoot down as long as the government continues to define marriage as being between two individuals as opposed to fifty. However, if the tide of culture were to change and the people as well as the government that represents them decided that have polygamous marriage was a good thing, then I could see polygamy being made legal. However, re-defining the gender of those allowed in marriage partnerships does not logically lead to re-defining the number of people allowed in a legal marriage. There is… Read more »

Matt Bell
Member

Again, the problem with your SSM argument as stated above is not that acceptance of SSM necessitates acceptance of polygamy, but that the prevailing arguments in favor of SSM can and will be used by polygamy advocates. That is a problem for you if you want to continue rejecting polygamy while accepting SSM. Google “polygamy marriage equality.”

Christopher
Member

“Do our arguments for “gay marriage” accidentally open the door to polygamy? etc.”
Yes although ‘accidentally’ may be the wrong word.

Bro. Steve
Guest
Bro. Steve

I am mystified…. Why do so many theologically minded people wrestle with this question?

Sodomy is bad.

It’s not okay for you to want it.

Case closed.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I’m going to exercise my right to disagree with my spiritual and intellectual betters, Burk and Wilson. I’m not convinced that same sex attraction is sinful, as long as the proper qualifications are said. SSA is a result of the curse and therefore the fall, and is related to sin in sorta the same way that, say, having a genetic predisposition to Lou Gehrig’s Disease is. I’ve known a fellow who had ALS. It is BAD, and if there’s a genetic predisposition to it – that itself is BAD. That genetic screwup has the stains of sin all over it,… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“SSA is a result of the curse and therefore the fall, and is related to sin in sorta the same way that, say, having a genetic predisposition to Lou Gehrig’s Disease is.” I don’t really understand these attempted distinctions between sin from the fall and personal sin we ourselves actively engage in? To me it sounds too much like a defense, like an unwillingess to be held accountable, to accept responsibility. Although I would never blame someone for having a disease, the harsh truth of the matter is that they will pay the price for that, they will suffer because… Read more »

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I don’t really understand these attempted distinctions between sin from
the fall and personal sin we ourselves actively engage in?

Does a person with a genetic predisposition to ALS need to ask for God’s forgiveness for having that messed up DNA? If so, is the prayer basically the same as, let’s say the prayer of a murderer, asking forgiveness for a murder that he himself committed?

insanitybytes22
Member

A person may well need to ask for forgiveness for things that are not directly their fault. Perhaps they need forgiveness for how they have handled it or forgiveness for blaming themselves.

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

It is important to realize that Denny’s view and Wilson’s view on this subject has been the standard Christian view throughout the history of the church. There is currently pressure from the outside to view our attractions as non-culpable (in specific situations dealing with victim classes of people), however few Christians throughout church would recognize this discussion. Is the primary piece of evidence that you are interacting with to determine that attractions to rape, murder, pedophilia, and s.s.a. are forms of brokenness and not the sinful pull of our hearts towards evil the temptation of Jesus? I have never heard… Read more »

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I have never heard Gethsemane be described as a temptation to do evil but a strong desire to not be forsaken by the Father.

I considered this objection before I posted the comment, and it is up for debate. For now, I’m going to side with the ESV Study Bible on Matt 26:39 — “Jesus is facing the most severe temptation of his life, at the moment when he is ready to accomplish the culmination of his life’s mission …”

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

I don’t disagree with the ESV wording there, but you have to define the type of pull. What type of pull is it? A pull towards evil? Or two competing good desires?

Jane
Member

It uses the word “temptation,” so I think it’s evident what is intended.

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

We cannot adopt a simplistic understanding of temptation such that all temptation is inherently evil or purely neutral. The word temptation is more flexible than that. The biblical usage is more varied. We can clearly describe the attempt of Potipher’s wife to seduce Joseph as a temptation in that it was a clearly an “offer presented.” In that sense it was a temptation. But this temptation was not internalized. Joseph was scandalized by the offer and distanced himself from the seductress. His flesh was not attracted to the offer but his righteous heart was repelled by the offer. Per James… Read more »

Nathan Anderson
Member
Nathan Anderson

How does Hebrews 4:15 (“tempted in every way“) fit into this discussion?

But this temptation was not internalized. Joseph was scandalized by the offer and distanced himself from the seductress. His flesh was not attracted to the offer but his righteous heart was repelled by the offer.

Wait, how do you know this? The text doesn’t say that his flesh was not attracted to the offer. Why can’t it have been both simultaneously: his flesh / old nature was attracted by the offer AND YET his righteous heart was repelled, and he successfully fled temptation?

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

There are two choices: 1) consider temptation a technical term with the same meaning in every passage, or 2) seek to maintain distinctions in usage If you go the first route, you end up with Jesus being lured and enticed by His own evil desires (James 1) and therefore guilty of sin (Col 3:5) If you acknowledge that James 1 speaks of an inward temptation and other passages speak of an external enticement, then you can make sense of the biblical data without concluding Jesus was a sinner. As a result, Jesus being tempted in every way like we are… Read more »

Jane
Member

A temptation is always a pull toward sin. Whether the one experiencing temptation is yet guilty of sin is more complex question, but the writer of the comment clearly intended to suggest that it is a pull toward sin, not a felt need to choose between valid desires.

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Not according to the lexicons

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Is the primary piece of evidence that you are interacting with to determine that attractions to rape, murder, pedophilia, and s.s.a. are forms of brokenness and not the sinful pull of our hearts towards evil the temptation of Jesus? It’s the first objection that comes to my mind and I haven’t yet heard a convining argument to the contrary. I feel a strong pull to steal. Is the pull sinful[1]? Biblically speaking, where does the pull come from[2]? Should I expect this pull to be lifelong[3]? How is this pull different from s.s.a.[4]? 1. Maybe. Is the pull actually a… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

If we face the fact that the Bible holds us responsible not only for our actions but also for our desires,, then this subject becomes much simpler. We are instructed to put to death “evil desire” (Colossians 3:5). Attractions to rape, murder, pedophilia, and s.s.a. are fundamentally evil desires that need to be put off. Jesus never had evil desires that needed to be put off. He experienced temptation, but not the type of temptation that comes from a wicked heart which is attracted to evil.

MB
Guest
MB

Doug, the problem in evanjellyfishism, thanks to Wesley Hill, Christopher Yuan, Desiring God, and even Al Mohler, is that SSA has been created as a cocoon for a state of non-sinful attraction. Thus many believe that it works like this: SSA (not sinful) if acted upon leads to lust (sinful) and then to homosexual acts (sinful.) Denny Burk was the first major scholar/pastor/theologian to write on what many of us bible believing Christians already knew: SSA is lust which is sin. Until a biblically informed definition of SSA is settled upon, this argument always goes back to the root: is… Read more »